Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,713 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 950,451
Pageviews Today: 1,434,856Threads Today: 386Posts Today: 8,840
12:49 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 715509
United States
01/02/2010 09:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
THIS IS WEIRD , I WAS HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH MY SON ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY. I ALSO PROFFERED THE THOUGHT THAT, WOULDN'T HE HAVE HAD TO BE A CLONE OF MARY IF HE ONLY HAD HER D.N.A. I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE ON THIS. SOMEONE MAY BE ABLE TO CORRECT ME.
 Quoting: Lotis Gum 854474

Off topic perhaps?

However, if a method were found to tease out a human egg to begin celluar divison with the very first step being the production of a second copy of that egg's 23 chromosomes producing 46 chromosomes and then the egg divides, we could continue on the cell division as normal and it is thought (once the state of the 'art' reaches that point) that it would then be possible to produce a living viable human clone simply from a single egg without ever fertilizing that egg.

If you took a woman's egg and did this to it and implanted that egg back into that woman's womb, if successfuly implanted a woman then could literally give birth to a clone of herself... give birth to her own 'identical' twin.

The state of the Science of Human Genetics and human genetics engineering has not yet (that we know of) reached that point. This is one of the reasons there are bans on the production of human clones, by the way.

However, that clone would still carry two X chromosomes, even though they would be identical, only a female child could be produced by this process.

In some animals this sort of thing occurs in nature and it is called monoparthenogenesis. It seems that (as far as I have had time to determin) only turkeys are capable of other sex monoparthenogenesis a female turkey producing a male offspring in such a fashion. As far as I have had time to discover from the publications of modern research in this area there are no known cases of mammalian 'other sex' monoparthenogenesis... the female mammal seems to produce female offspring in the rare cases that mammalian monoparthenogenesis takes place.

There have even been some claimed cases of human monoparthenogenesis but even then in such claimes the claimed offspring has been female... and these are extremely rare... and in general the claims not believed by 'science'.

The interesting thing about this has to do with the promise made in the Garden of Eden about the Promised Seed of the Woman... as the source of the Savior of mankind.

I would suggest that you do a google on Arthur Custance and his Doorway Papers as he offers up a theory about how this might have worked... called, "The Promised Seed of the Woman". His genetics are those of the mid to late 1950's.. and his theory needs an update in light of the understanding of the genetics of 2010.

Interestingly once you see where Custance is coming from on this you will begin to see why there is this incredible push to study the Human Geneome and to do human genetic engineering and especially the great push for the scifi of Human Cloning it becomes easy to see what the dark ones among them are attempting to do.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 715509
United States
01/02/2010 10:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
[link to www.hfbcbiblestudy.org]


Thanks for the interesting link. I have only a few comments.

First, the link says that the genealogy in Matthew established the LEGAL royal blood line through Joseph, which is an argument I've read hundreds of times before. However, since Joseph was not the physical father of Christ, the “seed of David” could not pass through him. The Bible makes no mention of the requirement of a purely legal blood line. The "fruit of one's loins" is a physical status, not a legal one.

Second, the Article also says that Mary's mother was of the House of Arron so that Mary was also of the house of Aaron/Levi as I suggested. However the author says that Mary was also of the house of Judah through her father and that “The blood line of Nathan, the son of David, is through Mary's father.” However, there are several problems with this conclusion.

As I have already shown, the bloodline (seed of David) was to be through David's son Solomon, not his son Nathan. Additionally, the genealogy given in Luke does makes no mention of Mary, nor does it identify Mary's father. The genealogy in Luke traces the ancestry of Nathan to Joseph, but not to Mary. If Joseph and Mary have the same genealogies their relationship is incestuous.

If Mary's father was of the house of David, where is that fact stated in the Bible? What's his name?

I have provided verses showing that the throne of David would pass through Solomon. If the throne of David is to pass through Nathan as your link claims, where is that fact stated in the Bible? Did God change His mind?

I said there was no evidence in the Bible which proved that either Joseph or Mary could have passed the seed of David to Christ. The link you provided was interesting and I thank you, but it did nothing to make me change my mind.

One parting thought. Over the years I have read dozens of schemes employed in an attempt to find Biblical evidence of a bloodline between either Joseph or Mary and King David. There are four theories involving the Book of Luke: (1) it is the genealogy of Joseph; (2) it is the genealogy of Mary; (3) it is the genealogy of Mary's father; and (4) it is not a legitimate genealogy of anyone. The later theory is based on the fact that the genealogy is introduced by the words "as was supposed."
 Quoting: The Professor 660063

I see you have done your homework well. However, you have not listed the assumptions that you have made in reaching your conclusions, assumptions of an interpretative nature. If you were doing a scholarly work such a setting forth of your operational assumptions would be called for. But, hey, this is a forum and such scholar work calls for a book or several of them to properly and fully handle the issue.

None-the-less the 'riddle' is indeed a puzzling one and a difficult one to tease out. On the 'plain reading' or the 'straight reading' at first, second, and third blush, even with somewhat of a knowledge of the Old Testament it is rather easy to understand just where those "Jews" were coming from that rejected Jesus Christ as the Savior, if this current set of Scripture would have been all they had to go on. But, they were actually there... both those "jews" that accepted Jesus Christ as Savrior and those "jews" that did not.

That most so called Bible Thumpers will merely reguritate the writings of this author or that scholar is merely an appeal to authority and the same can be said as to the other side of these arguments. Rare indeed is the 'believer' who having seen the problems here as you pose them set down and done his own serious brain work and re-searching of the Scriptures.

But to admit this riddle does not exist is to be dishonest with the texts.

I myself have been searching for the answer to this riddle for several decades and have long been aware of the 4 basic approaches taht have been used, and I too find none of them entirely convincing.

In as much as much is made in terms of various and sundry 'legal' interpretations and arguments of the Old Testament Law especialy going on at the time these gospels cover, it is very hard to not choose one Rabbi's interpretation over another's about the keeping of bloodlines, the merging of bloods lines, and indeed the handling of the very terms of the endless geneologies. Even of those given in Genesis. Indeed about the very meaning of the legal terms and the judical decision made by one judge or another.

Case in point also is that we do not have, have not been given the entire "clan" or Tribal Genetic tree of every single generation of any or all of the Tribes of Israel. We have not been given the entire Genetic Pedigree of every person that ever lived that shared Jacob-Israel as a common ancestor in a biological genetic sense. And we most certainly are given very little information about the women.
It would appear, that only God knows for sure, only God has 'on record' the full genetic genome book of every single individual that ever lived.

The Scripture does most certainly lay down certain constraints that have to be paid attention to in this area of study.

Many a Christian has no answer, has not even considered there is a problem here to even cause them to seek an answer -- many are afraid to look too deep as they might feel it will weaken their faith -- apparently such faith is already weak -- they don not seem to realize that according to the Scripture it is Jesus Christ's faith that saves them and not their own -- apparently they doubt that.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 849249
United States
01/02/2010 10:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
The Professor has stated he is not a believer. He does have an excellent understanding of scripture and certainly seems to have done a fair amount of research.

He's quite a good guy.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 715509
United States
01/02/2010 10:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Hey Prof,
Check this out-
1. Abraham , Yitzhak, Yacov, Yahudah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse and David= 14.
2. Sholomo, Rehoboam, AbiYah, Asa, Yehoshaphat, Yehoram, Uzziah, Yotham ,Ahaz, Hezekiah, Mannaseh, Amon, Yosiah and Yeconiah(Exile to Babylon)=14.

Then we have Matthew 1:17 which explicitly says that one should be able to find 14 generations from the exile to the Messiah.
3. Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Akim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Yacov, Yousef, Miriam(Mary) followed by the Messiah=14 generations.
"The husband of Mary" part can also be rendered as "The Givra of Mary" where "Givra" can mean "Husband" or "Lord/Father".

It's pays RICHLY if you sometimes ignore King Jimmy and his excellent translators. Can't really blame them when they ignore the richness of the ancient eastern languages, choosing instead to have their expert committees to arrive on a consensus to decide the correct rendering(s).
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 855279

Cite your source Greek or Aramaic Textual line, please? I too have seen this but cannot remember where.

I make a case that one should fully study the Greek of Matthew to see if there are other places in Matthew where the Greek word "aner" can be rendered into English as "father" without doing harm to the meaning of the text in light of other texts on the identical topic.

If "aner" can also be rendered into English as 'father' (an unusal usage seemingly so) then that thesis does hold some water but would yet have to be tested on other points from the dataset, i.e., the Scripture.

I have alot of problems myself with Eramus's Greek Text Edition and the KJV English in particular.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 848712
Canada
01/02/2010 10:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Jesus is the beginning and the end!

Those of you that hate Christ will have to deal with this fatal flaw in your walk.

It's a daily walk and hope for a new day is always possible!
 Quoting: Ice


“Not without reason has it pleased Almighty God that Holy Scripture should be a secret in certain places, lest, it were plainly apparent to all men, perchance it would be little esteemed and be subject to disrespect.” Pope Gregory V11

“It is an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted.” – Bishop Eusebius (260-339)

“Some said, Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, they are in error.” Gospel of Phillip

"I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in another world than he does in this." Ingersoll

“Religion comes from man. It does not come from heaven. It is not divine. It is human.” Paul Jury, ex-Jesuit Priest

The biblical concepts of sin and salvation are an integral part of Christian doctrine. Christianity first creates a problem (sin) and then offers a "solution" (salvation). This is not unlike the protection racket; you either buy "protection"--or else. Don Morgan

One of the cruelest of all the Roman emperors, a man named Caligula, used to say, "Crosses and corpses are so educational. Let the scum see their blood or the blood of some of their kin and it will so cower them in fear that then we can rule them."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 845432
United States
01/02/2010 10:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Whatever.

The geneology states that he IS the son of Joseph.

I hate you christer pieces of shit. You goddamn liars. Rot in hell you fucking asshole.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 845432
United States
01/02/2010 10:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
The genealogy also states the Adam was the son of God....

This means we are all sons of God.

I hate you christers. You're such lying pieces of shit. Worthless barely concious scum.

Shove your bible up your ass.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 855279
India
01/02/2010 11:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Hey Prof,
Check this out-
1. Abraham , Yitzhak, Yacov, Yahudah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse and David= 14.
2. Sholomo, Rehoboam, AbiYah, Asa, Yehoshaphat, Yehoram, Uzziah, Yotham ,Ahaz, Hezekiah, Mannaseh, Amon, Yosiah and Yeconiah(Exile to Babylon)=14.

Then we have Matthew 1:17 which explicitly says that one should be able to find 14 generations from the exile to the Messiah.
3. Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Akim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Yacov, Yousef, Miriam(Mary) followed by the Messiah=14 generations.
"The husband of Mary" part can also be rendered as "The Givra of Mary" where "Givra" can mean "Husband" or "Lord/Father".

It's pays RICHLY if you sometimes ignore King Jimmy and his excellent translators. Can't really blame them when they ignore the richness of the ancient eastern languages, choosing instead to have their expert committees to arrive on a consensus to decide the correct rendering(s).

Cite your source Greek or Aramaic Textual line, please? I too have seen this but cannot remember where.

I make a case that one should fully study the Greek of Matthew to see if there are other places in Matthew where the Greek word "aner" can be rendered into English as "father" without doing harm to the meaning of the text in light of other texts on the identical topic.

If "aner" can also be rendered into English as 'father' (an unusal usage seemingly so) then that thesis does hold some water but would yet have to be tested on other points from the dataset, i.e., the Scripture.

I have alot of problems myself with Eramus's Greek Text Edition and the KJV English in particular.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715509


Just google "A Ruach Qadim Excerpt", it's a free pdf.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 825010
United States
01/02/2010 12:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Professor,

Joseph and Mary came from the line of David. Joseph was
Our Lord's foster father so it is very important that Mary
descended from David.

I posted the same at Jesus on the Cross thread.

Numbers 36:6 And this is the law promulgated by the Lord touching the daughters of Salphaad: Let them marry to whom they will, only so that it be to men of their own tribe.
7 Lest the possession of the children of Israel be mingled from tribe to tribe. For all men shall marry wives of their own tribe and kindred: 8 And all women shall take husbands of the same tribe: that the inheritance may remain in the families, 9 And that the tribes be not mingled one with another, but remain so 10 As they were separated by the Lord. And the daughters of Salphaad did as was commanded:

11 And Maala, and Thersa, and Hegla, and Melcha, and Noa were married to the sons of their uncle by their father, 12 Of the family of Manasses, who was the son of Joseph: and the possession that had been allotted to them, remained in the tribe and family of their father.


You gotta be kidding me!

There is nothing in your article which mentions anything about Mary. You cannot possibly believe that the verses you quote offer the slightest evidence of either Mary's or Joseph's lineage to King David.

I asked for Biblical proof of Christ's lineage to King David and you have offered nothing but irrelevant gibberish.

On a plus note, at least you didn't attempt to challenge my analysis that the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke do not in any way establish that Mary is of the house of David.

Try again, and this time look for a verse that actually says something about Mary's ancestry. Don't bother me with verses about Joseph because every Christian knows that Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus, so that the "seed of David" could not have passed through him. Being Christ's foster father means nothing.
 Quoting: The Professor 660063


You are just denying Scripture. God is going to follow His own Law in regards to Himself coming as the Messiah!

Mary and Joseph both came from the line of David as
Numbers 36 states.

Professor, for not being a Christian why are you following a Christian Protestant teaching (a false teaching)? "Where is it written in the Bible" you keep asking. There is more to God's revelation, the oral teachings of the Apostles passed down is another.

Were you raised as a non-Catholic Christian (Protestant)?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 825010
United States
01/02/2010 01:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Hey Prof,
Check this out-
1. Abraham , Yitzhak, Yacov, Yahudah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse and David= 14.
2. Sholomo, Rehoboam, AbiYah, Asa, Yehoshaphat, Yehoram, Uzziah, Yotham ,Ahaz, Hezekiah, Mannaseh, Amon, Yosiah and Yeconiah(Exile to Babylon)=14.

Then we have Matthew 1:17 which explicitly says that one should be able to find 14 generations from the exile to the Messiah.
3. Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Akim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Yacov, Yousef, Miriam(Mary) followed by the Messiah=14 generations.
"The husband of Mary" part can also be rendered as "The Givra of Mary" where "Givra" can mean "Husband" or "Lord/Father".

It's pays RICHLY if you sometimes ignore King Jimmy and his excellent translators. Can't really blame them when they ignore the richness of the ancient eastern languages, choosing instead to have their expert committees to arrive on a consensus to decide the correct rendering(s).
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 855279


LOL, King James same as Luther went against the Church, there
are 30,000 changes made to the Bible in his new KJV Bible!

The excellent translators, they were "gay" like the King.

No holy Spirit...that's for sure.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 836255
United States
01/02/2010 01:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Some want to know
and some want not to know.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 849249
United States
01/02/2010 01:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
The genealogy also states the Adam was the son of God....

This means we are all sons of God.

I hate you christers. You're such lying pieces of shit. Worthless barely concious scum.

Shove your bible up your ass.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 845432



LOL. Just in case we didn't get the first message?

What a whacko.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 855460
United States
01/02/2010 01:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
What is the name of Mary's father?


mm Kevin?
 Quoting: Sir Marmaduke Tweng



Brian
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 849995
United States
01/02/2010 01:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
MATTHEW-TJ VERSE COMPARISONS, Mt 1

Mt 1:1 1The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.


TJ 1:1 1This is the book and arcanum of Jmmanuel, who is called "the one with godly knowledge," who is a son of Joseph, of Jakob (Jacob), of the distant descendants of David. David was a descendant of Abram (Abraham), whose genealogy traces back to Adam, the father of a species of terrestrial human beings. Adam was begotten by Semjasa, the commander of the celestial sons who were the guardian angels of El, the great ruler of the travelers from afar.


[link to tjresearch.info]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 825010
United States
01/02/2010 02:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Jochiam, Mary's Father is called another name in Scripture.

Thank you Bob Stanley from Catholic Treasure Chest, I share his explanation on the subject:

+ + + +

Saint Luke has quite a different account of the genealogy of Jesus Christ. He wrote his Gospel to address the Gentiles who were not under the Mosaic Law, and for the most part were unfamiliar with it. He was also a physician, (Col 4:14). His interest, no doubt, was not in the legal aspect of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, but of the human or natural bloodline, by depicting Jesus as the "Son of Man". Luke's Genealogy begins with Jesus Christ and goes backward in time, just the opposite of Matthew who started back and came forward. Luke's genealogy follows the custom of Private Records as explained above. Notice in Luke 3:23-38, that Luke's genealogy does go from Jesus Christ, through David, and back to Judah, continuing all the way to Adam, and then to GOD. By doing this he shows a tie between the "New Adam" (1Cor 15:45) and the first Adam. However, Luke shows the descendant of David to be Nathan (31), and not Solomon, as does Matthew. This alludes to the possibility that Luke's genealogy is for a different person other than Joseph. Let us have a closer look at verse 23 with three different Bibles.

"And Jesus Himself, when He began His work, was about thirty years of age, -being as was supposed- the Son of Joseph, the Son of Heli, the Son of Matthat."
Challoner-Rheims-Confraternity


"And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, which was the Son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat..."
King James


This verse at first reading might seem to say that we have something amiss:

1. This verse appears to say that the father of Joseph is Heli, yet in Matthew we just saw that it was Jacob. How can Joseph have two fathers?
In many places in Holy Scripture we must revert to the underlying Greek text in order to fully understand the verse. The Greek word used for "as was supposed, or, as was thought" is "Nomizo", which means:
1. To hold by custom or usage.
2. To follow by custom or usage.
3. It is the custom.
4. It is the received usage.
5. To deem, to think, to suppose.

This matter can be made clearer by interpreting the verse as:
"When Jesus began His ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the Son (so it was thought, of Joseph) of Heli."

The underlying Greek text supports this interpretation as, "...Joseph son of Heli", in the English translation, simply reads, "...Joseph of Eli". The word 'son' before Heli, is not in the Greek text.

So in order to trace the bloodline of Jesus through Heli, we would first have to go through Mary, His mother. This shows that Heli would be the blood father of Mary, and the father in law of Joseph. Even though the name of Mary is not listed, in order to comply with Jewish custom, it is certainly implied....



...Joachim is mentioned as the father of Mary in the following apocryphal books: The Protoevangelium of James, The Gospel of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, and The Book of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Joachim is another form of Joakim and Eliakim. Take a look at these two verses:

2Kings 23:34, "And Pharao Nechao made Eliakim the son of the Josias king in the room of Josias his father, and turned his name to Joakim..."

2Chron 36:4, "And he made Eliakim his brother king in his stead over Judah and Jerusalem; and he turned his name to Joakim..."

Subsequently, over the centuries, it is probable that the name Eliakim was shortened to Eli or Heli.
Heli is merely the Greek form of the Hebrew Eli. The high priest in 1Sam 1:3 is called Heli in the Challoner-Rheims, and Eli in the New American Bible. You can see that the differences in translations will show different names at times.
There are many name changes and different spellings of persons names in Scripture. For example, Matthew himself, was also called Levi in Luke 5:27, and in Mark 2:14.
Joachim and Heli appear to be one and the same person.
Do not forget that Biblical names spanned many centuries and names evolved and changed then, just as they do now.

The Jewish Talmud, in the Gemara, also mentions that the father of Mary was Heli.
Chagigah 77:4

The meaning of some of the names we have used here...

Eliakim - resurrection of GOD.
Eli - my GOD.
Joachim/Joakim - YAHWEH prepares.
Heli - ascending, climbing up.

Names with 'El', meaning GOD, are from the Hebrew name for GOD, Elohim.
Notice that Joachim simply is meaning another name for GOD, 'Yahweh'.

Here is one last thought on this subject. The name Heli (as the father of Mary) is Biblical, as shown in Luke 3:23, while the name, Joachim, (as being the father of Mary), is found only in Apocrypha.
DEDALO
User ID: 786569
Mexico
01/02/2010 02:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
[link to www.biblegateway.com]

Matthew 1

The Genealogy of Jesus

1 A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 825010
United States
01/02/2010 02:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
[link to www.biblegateway.com]

Matthew 1

The Genealogy of Jesus

1 A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ
 Quoting: DEDALO 786569


MATTHEW shows the genealogy of Joseph.

LUKE shows the genealogy of Mary...actually, of Our Lord.
God bless them each and every
User ID: 465669
United States
01/02/2010 03:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
blah, blah, blah, and blah.

Time for a prayer:

Dear God, forgive me, but intellectuals are such a pain in the butt.

Please help free us from their rigid, left-brain, anal and mentally constipated hell where they believe that their egocentric, nihilistic rationalism is the highest form of consciousness.

Their endlessly bickering over unprovable "facts" and pulling things out of context drives the rest of us crazy. Even worse they makes us fund their ridiculous research projects and pay their salaries.

Someday, when hell freezes over, they will quit debating how many professors can stand on the head of a pin and they will read the simple messages of the teachers you provide us.

Until them, Father, forgive them, they know not how silly they are.

Amen
Bowhunter
User ID: 805188
United States
01/02/2010 03:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Christians insist that Christ MUST be of the seed of David. Since it must be conceded that Joseph is not the father of Jesus, the only way to establish that Christ is of the seed of David is to prove that His mother Mary is a descendant of David. However, the Bible offers no evidence of this. The Bible gives only two genealogies for Christ. The first is found in Matthew, and the second in Luke. Here are both genealogies purportedly tracing Christ to King David (edited for brevity):

Matthew 1:6-16:

“And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam.....And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23-31

“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli....which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David”

As anyone can see, these verses tell nothing of Mary's ancestors. Absolutely nothing. This would the first time in all the history of the world that a woman's lineage is given without mentioning the woman. What makes this whole thing funny is that when you compare the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke you will find several contradictions:

First, Mathew claims that the father of Joseph (Mary's husband) is Jacob, while Luke claims Joseph's father was Heli. Matthew 1:16 says: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” However, Luke 3:23 says: “ And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.”

Second, Matthew traces Joseph's linage through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), whereas Luke traces it through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). Of course, both passages cannot be true since that would be biologically impossible. It reminds me of that old song, “I'm My Own Grandpa.”

Third, both Matthew and Luke clearly trace the ancestry of Joseph. If the same ancestry applies to Mary, then Mary, the mother of Jesus, was intimately involved with her own brother or half-brother. Anyone who has read the Old Testament knows this is a no-no.

The only specific Biblical reference to Mary's genealogy is found in Luke 1:36, which says that Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, and Luke 1:5 which says that Elisabeth was of the daughter of Aaron (of the house of Levi, not Judah). Since one's ancestry is traced through male descendants, and not female, Luke shows that Mary would of the tribe of Levi just as her cousin Elisabeth was, and not of the tribe of Judah as David was. The Qur'an states clearly that Mary was in fact of the daughters of Aaron, from the tribe of Levi:

“And she came to her people with him, carrying him [Jesus] with her. They said: O Marium [Mary]! surely you have done a strange thing. O sister of Haroun [Aaron]! your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman.” See the Qur'an, Sura 19, Ayat 27, 28 (explanatory insertions my own).

There is another another major problem with claiming that Matthew traces Mary's ancestry back to King David. In Matthew 1:12, the given lineage from King David to Joseph (and supposedly to Mary) includes Jechonias. Now the Old Testament prohibits any seed of Jechonia (a.k.a. Jechonias and Coniah) from ascending to the throne of David:

“Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (Jeremiah 22:28-30).

Of course, there is also an additional problem with Luke's account of Christ's ancestry. Luke traces Mary's genealogy to King David through David's son Nathan; however, the Old Testament says that the Messiah would be the seed of David's other son Solomon (1 Chronicles 28:5; 1 Chronicles 29:1 and 1 Chronicles 29:24). So even of the lineage given in Luke applied to Mary (which it does not), her son is not qualified to sit on the throne of David.

In conclusion, there is nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - in the Bible which traces Mary's lineage to King David. But if I'm wrong, answer this one question for me: What is the name of Mary's father? Or try this one: Where in the Bible does it specifically state that Mary was of the house of David? If you have found such a reference, I will confess to the world that you are more knowledgeable about the Bible than I am. All you have to do is cite the verse which supports your claim.

The best that any Christian can do is to make an illogical claim that Mary had to be of the lineage of David because she was Christ's mother and Christ had to be of the lineage of David. That nonsense doesn't work for me or anyone else with at least the minimal cognitive abilities of the average 12-year old.

There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, if anything, the Bible proves He is not.
 Quoting: The Professor 660063

Actually there is, Look to Ruth and see who she begat.
jk1
User ID: 790968
Czech Republic
01/02/2010 04:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
WebBible Encyclopedia
Home



Mary (mother of Jesus)
Hebrew: Miriam.

Mary was the wife of Joseph and the mother of Jesus Christ, who was conceived within her by the Holy Spirit when she was a virgin. She is often called the “Virgin Mary,” though never in Scripture are those two words put together as a proper name (Matt. 2:11; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27; Acts 1:14).

Little is known of her personal history. Her genealogy is given in Luke 3 (see below). She was of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David (Psalm 132:11; Luke 1:32). She was connected by marriage with Elisabeth, who was of the lineage of Aaron (Luke 1:36).

While she resided at Nazareth with her parents, before she became the wife of Joseph, the angel Gabriel announced to her that she was to be the mother of the promised Messiah (Luke 1:35). After this she went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was living with her husband Zacharias (probably at Juttah, Josh. 15:55; 21:16, in the neighborhood of Maon), at a considerable distance, about 100 miles, from Nazareth. Immediately on entering the house she was saluted by Elisabeth as the mother of her Lord, and then immediately gave her hymn of thanksgiving (Luke 1:46-56; compare 1 Sam. 2:1-10). After three months Mary returned to Nazareth to her own home.

Joseph was supernaturally made aware (Matt. 1:18-25) of her condition, and took her to his own home. Soon after this the decree of Augustus (Luke 2:1) required that they should proceed to Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), some 80 or 90 miles from Nazareth; and while they were there they found shelter in the inn or khan provided for strangers (Luke 2:6,7). But as the inn was crowded, Mary had to retire to a place among the cattle, and there she brought forth her son, who was called Jesus (Matt. 1:21), because he was to save his people from their sins.

This was followed by the presentation in the temple, the flight into Egypt, and their return in the following year and residence at Nazareth (Matt. 2). There for thirty years Mary, the wife of Joseph the carpenter, resides, filling her own humble sphere, and pondering over the strange things that had happened to her. During these years only one event in the history of Jesus is recorded, viz., his going up to Jerusalem when twelve years of age, and his being found among the doctors in the temple (Luke 2:41-52). Probably also during this period Joseph died, for he is not again mentioned.

After the commencement of our Lord’s public ministry little notice is taken of Mary. She was present at the marriage in Cana. A year and a half after this we find her at Capernaum (Matt. 12:46,48,49), where Christ uttered the memorable words, “Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!” The next time we find her is at the cross along with her sister Mary, and Mary Magdalene, and Salome, and other women (John 19:26). From that hour John took her to his own abode. She was with the little company in the upper room after the Ascension (Acts 1:14). From this time she wholly disappears from public notice. The time and manner of her death are unknown.

Author: Matthew G. Easton, with editing by Paul S. Taylor.
MARY’S OTHER CHILDREN

Mary’s other sons included Joses (Joseph), James, Judas, and Simon. There were evidently sisters as well, but they are unnamed (Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3).

GENEAOLOGY

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
Although Jesus was clearly legally related to both parents (to Mary, by being born from her, and to Joseph by legal adoption), was he genetically related to them or to his brothers and sisters?

For thousands of years, every human child has been born with an inherited sin nature and sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). This is a result of our sinful first parents, Adam and Eve to whom we are all genetically related. Each generation (without exception) has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and passed on its sinful nature and the curse of death, to each succeeding generation (the biblical doctrine of imputation of sin - Romans 5:12-19). There is only one exception in history. Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.

■Ever since the Creation, each subsequent life has been created at the moment of conception. Scientifically, the new entity begins at the moment the DNA of man and woman combine. This was not the case with Jesus. As a spirit and part of the Trinity, Jesus existed before the Creation of the world. In fact, John reveals that he is the Creator (John 1).

■Furthermore, the physical body of Jesus as born in Bethlehem was clearly a special creation of God, placed in Mary’s womb. This is the biblical doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

Thus, neither Christ’s spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29). (For further explanation, see: CREATION AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH and WHEN GOD BECAME MAN]

Author: Paul S. Taylor.
ALSO SEE:

■Messiah
■How do we know that Jesus was the Messiah?
■List of Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ
■Answers to objections raised by some Jews


-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------



Christian Answers Network HOMEPAGE and DIRECTORYPlease report any technical problems or content errors.
WebBible™ and ChristianAnswers.Net are ministries of Films for Christ®.


…an educational mega-site designed for the entire family
Christian Answers® Network™ experts tackle your tough questions about life, the Bible, and the Christian faith.
 Quoting: 9teen.47™

Aren't you too clever ? According to Jewish tales he was also the follower of Amon and Moab tribes which came from incest of Lot with his daughters.
Aha ???


4windsUnltd.
Sir.Kalin

User ID: 855041
United States
01/02/2010 04:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Excellent Post Professor!

5 Stars!

And BTW - Why do so many of you gotta QUOTE the Entire Article Again?

Please cut it out!
:LordKayleSig4:
- "Your best investment is ammo, because it's going to weird quickly." - AC 1196210

- "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson's Personal Seal
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 836255
United States
01/02/2010 04:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
MATTHEW shows the genealogy of Joseph.

LUKE shows the genealogy of Mary...actually, of Our Lord.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 825010

Matthew is the gospel written by a Jew to Jews about a Jew.

Matthew provides the legal claim.


Luke is a doctor, a physician, and his gospel emphasizes the humanity, ancestry, birth and life of Christ.

Luke provides the blood claim.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 825010
United States
01/02/2010 04:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
This is neat, proves in a wonderful way, God's plan.
We see it in the Old Testament and His plan is made greater in the New.

Several examples, the Annunciation, David before the Ark
and Mary's visitation to Elizabeth.

+ + + ++ + + +



..."It's easy to miss the parallel between the Holy Spirit overshadowing the ark and the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, between the Ark of the Old Covenant as the dwelling place of God and Mary as the new dwelling place of God.

God was very specific about every exact detail of the ark (Ex. 25-30). It was a place where God himself would dwell (Ex. 25:8). God wanted his words — inscribed on stone — housed in a perfect container covered with pure gold within and without. How much more would he want his Word — Jesus — to have a perfect dwelling place! If the only begotten Son were to take up residence in the womb of a human girl, would he not make her flawless?

The Virgin Mary is the living shrine of the Word of God, the Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant. In fact, St. Luke's account of the annunciation of the angel to Mary nicely incorporates the images of the tent of meeting with God in Sinai and of the temple of Zion. Just as the cloud covered the people of God marching in the desert (cf. Num. 10:34; Deut. 33:12; Ps. 91:4) and just as the same cloud, as a sign of the divine mystery present in the midst of Israel, hovered over the Ark of the Covenant (cf. Ex. 40:35), so now the shadow of the Most High envelopes and penetrates the tabernacle of the New Covenant that is the womb of Mary (cf. Luke 1:35) (Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, The Shrine: Memory, Presence and Prophecy of the Living God).

Luke weaves additional parallels into the story of Mary — types that could be overlooked if one is unfamiliar with the Old Testament. After Moses died, Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Joshua established the Ark of the Covenant in Shiloh, where it stayed for more than 200 years. One day the Israelites were losing a battle with the Philistines, so they snatched the ark and rushed it to the front lines. The Philistines captured the ark, but it caused them great problems, so they sent it back to Israel (1 Sam. 5:1-6:12).

David went out to retrieve the ark (1 Sam 6:1-2). After a man named Uzzah was struck dead when he touched the ark, David was afraid and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" He left the ark in the hill country of Judea for three months. David danced and leapt in front of the ark and everyone shouted for joy. The house of Obededom, which had housed the ark, was blessed, and then David took the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:9-14).

Compare David and the ark to Luke's account of the Visitation:

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord" (Luke 1:39-45).

Here are the parallels:

* Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided) are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.
* When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth uses almost the same words: "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke is telling us something — drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.
* When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb — and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark. The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.
* When the Old Testament ark arrived — as when Mary arrived — they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth's greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.
* The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God's presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21-22).

It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl.

The Old Testament tells us that one item was placed inside the Ark of the Old Covenant while in the Sinai wilderness: God told Moses to put the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments inside the ark (Deut. 10:3-5). Hebrews 9:4 informs us that two additional items were placed in the Ark: "a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's rod that budded." Notice the amazing parallels: In the ark was the law of God inscribed in stone; in Mary's womb was the Word of God in flesh. In the ark was the urn of manna, the bread from heaven that kept God's people alive in the wilderness; in Mary's womb is the Bread of Life come down from heaven that brings eternal life. In the ark was the rod of Aaron, the proof of true priesthood; in Mary's womb is the true priest. In the third century, St. Gregory the Wonder Worker said that Mary is truly an ark — "gold within and gold without, and she has received in her womb all the treasures of the sanctuary."...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 478522
United States
01/02/2010 05:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Some want to know
and some want not to know.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 836255

You could say that about just about any religion and even atheism. Some don't want to know that they are mere mortals and will die and turn to dust. And some want to know the truth so they become atheists.

Or some don't want to know that the Scientology religion is the one true religion and others who are faithful followers do want to know.

Or you could say that about the Baptist religion, the Catholic religion, the Islam religion, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. I know you meant this in the context of the thread but it still means the same thing, no matter what context you say it in. All this means is that you think you are right about what you know and others are wrong about what they know. But you COULD be wrong, you know?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 825010
United States
01/02/2010 05:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Some want to know
and some want not to know.


You could say that about just about any religion and even atheism. Some don't want to know that they are mere mortals and will die and turn to dust. And some want to know the truth so they become atheists.

Or some don't want to know that the Scientology religion is the one true religion and others who are faithful followers do want to know.

Or you could say that about the Baptist religion, the Catholic religion, the Islam religion, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. I know you meant this in the context of the thread but it still means the same thing, no matter what context you say it in. All this means is that you think you are right about what you know and others are wrong about what they know. But you COULD be wrong, you know?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 478522


Then you are saying Truth is relative, whatever you wish to
believe and that's wrong. Truth is absolute. There is one
truth, God's Truth and He has revealed it to us. A gift from
God, it's your free will to decide whether you will accept
His Truth.
Lotus Feet

User ID: 776324
United Kingdom
01/02/2010 06:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
At least a discussion was allowed to go on here..

hf

Thank goodness..

Lotus
i love satan
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 832608
United States
01/02/2010 06:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
Christians insist that Christ MUST be of the seed of David. Since it must be conceded that Joseph is not the father of Jesus, the only way to establish that Christ is of the seed of David is to prove that His mother Mary is a descendant of David. However, the Bible offers no evidence of this. The Bible gives only two genealogies for Christ. The first is found in Matthew, and the second in Luke. Here are both genealogies purportedly tracing Christ to King David (edited for brevity):


 Quoting: The Professor 660063





Revelation 22:16

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 850608
Canada
01/02/2010 09:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
What is the name of Mary's father?

 Quoting: Sir Marmaduke Tweng


Imran.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 855788
United States
01/02/2010 09:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
stupthrd
seraph
User ID: 851849
United States
01/02/2010 09:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: There is no Biblical evidence that Christ is of the seed of King David. In fact, the Bible proves He is not.
stupthrd
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 855788

Seriously. I have'nt read a thing yet that supports any side of this thread. How do you tracer a geneology from a supposed "virgin" birth. Dumbasses if christ did have a blood line it would start with that in Genesis and the hybrid bloodlines god had to distroy so the saviour could be born jerkit